Yodeling in California
Washington politicians heard Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger yodeling all the way across the country during his State of the State speech yesterday. As a noted advocate for health care reform, his strong appeal to the California congressional delegation to reject the current federal health care plan if the measure is not improved made members of the Washington power elite squirm as quotes gathered by the New York Times reveal.
Schwarzenegger advised the legislature to take risks in seeking major reform this legislative session. He commented that if he had not taken any risks he would still be yodeling in Austria. Instead, he was yodeling loud and clear in California.
Schwarzenegger called out Nebraska U. S. Senator Ben Nelson and his “sweetheart” deal for the Cornhusker state over the health care plan. The governor demanded that California be taken care of as well. The unfairness of treatment between Nebraska and California set the stage for Schwarzenegger’s appeal that California be treated fairly with other states when it comes to receiving money from Washington.
A Glimmer of Hope for Legal Reform?
Is there hope?
A year ago, CJAC urged legislators to focus in the area of civil justice on making changes to hold down litigation costs and send a message that California was improving its legal climate and was becoming a more attractive place to do business.
Little or nothing happened on that score.
But this year the Legislature got off to a better start, as far as civil litigation goes. Faced with likely defeat, Assembly Member Marty Block pulled without a vote a bill (AB 989) before the Assembly Insurance Committee that would have let private lawyers become self-deputized vigilantes and go after insurance companies to get damages and – no surprise – attorney’s fees. It would allow lawsuits against insurers by anyone alleging to be harmed – including people who aren’t even policyholders.
Is Arnold Asking the Feds for Enough Money?
Over the next few months, I have to do something I’m dreading, something I’ve never done before in my life: raise money (for a global conference on direct democracy in San Francisco this coming summer).
My instinct, as a thrifty person (my wife would say cheapskate), is to ask for very small amounts of money for very specific costs. But when I talked to friends who raise money for a living, their advice is just the opposite: I should ask for more than I think I can get. They argue that people won’t take you seriously unless you ask for a ton of money.
Which brings me to Gov. Schwarzenegger. He hasn’t unveiled his budget yet, but recent reports suggest his administration is seeking $8 billion to forestall cuts in important human services programs and perhaps to cover additional costs the state may incur as a result of federal health insurance legislation.
Given the state’s budget troubles and the need for such programs, Schwarzenegger’s request is appropriate. But the question is: is it enough?
The answer here is: No.
Limiting a Convention to Two-Thirds of Prop. 13
Few topics related to California’s state government are as sensitive as Proposition 13. Which is why it is so important for Californians to clearly understand what impact a state constitutional convention could have on the landmark initiative. So let’s be clear: The constitutional convention proposal currently under circulation would be legally prohibited from proposing any tax increase whatsoever, including those taxes related to Proposition 13.
The reason is simple. Californians have made up their minds: they are unwilling to increase their property taxes to make up for Sacramento’s shortfall. Limiting the Convention from this issue would allow it to sidestep a poison pill and focus on the critical changes our state needs to end farcical budgeting, a bloated bureaucracy, the over-concentration of power in Sacramento, and a host of other problems.
But how can we be sure that these limits aren’t simply ignored? Can a state constitutional convention be limited? The answer is a resounding yes.